.....Neither side can provide scientific evidence that God exists, or does not exist. The score is 0-0.We must look at other avenues in which evidence is available to prove/disprove that God exists. ...... fair to me to go round and round and round and round and end up in the same place.Thanks

This is the crux of the problem. You are correct Holybuckets. Now, considering the numbers of Christians vs the number of atheists, and how each side treats the other (and what is fair to each), perhaps you can see why a web site like this is important, both for the safety of people who believe differently, and for the logic in your underlined statement above, yes?

Actually, we're still waiting for you to present your sources. You know, those historical, scholarly, and primary witness accounts that you keep talking about.

You've said you were going to introduce stuff from 1 Corinthians, since it's been verified as Paul's authentic writings...and you have yet to do so. Or to really present any verifiable historical, scholarly, and primary witness accounts.

Perhaps you should get to that.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Unfortunately, authenticity of authorship does not equate to authenticity of fact.

QFT.

We're not in a position to exhume Paul of Tarsus, jump-start the corpse and connect him to a polygraph machine to see if he was telling the truth about anything he wrote. As things stand right now, I'm not even sure he fell off that horse on the road to Damascus, let alone anything else he wrote about. I'm certainly not going to take him at his word about "Jesus," an entity he allegely only met in a vision.

And that's the closest we're likely to get to that elusive "primary evidence" insofar as the Bible is concerned. Without credible physical evidence from a reputable source, Biblegod might as well be Bat Boy and the Bible might as well be TimeCube.

Quite frankly, I could produce more physical evidence for Ghostbusters -- A photograph of Myself in New York City, and a wine bottle signed by Dan Aykroyd -- But even that wouldn't cause the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man to magically poof into existence.

.....Neither side can provide scientific evidence that God exists, or does not exist. The score is 0-0.We must look at other avenues in which evidence is available to prove/disprove that God exists. ...... fair to me to go round and round and round and round and end up in the same place.Thanks

This is the crux of the problem. You are correct Holybuckets. Now, considering the numbers of Christians vs the number of atheists, and how each side treats the other (and what is fair to each), perhaps you can see why a web site like this is important, both for the safety of people who believe differently, and for the logic in your underlined statement above, yes?

Wow, a clear thinker in the group. Thanks-

With all due respect to yourself and schnozzola, the point is that God is not and never has been scientific.

Next, I doubt that you know what "scientific" means in this respect.

Next, a proposition, "There is a god, I know because I worship him" is not set aside with "science". It is set aside with logic and on the balance of probabilities as the test.

All gods fail the "balance of probabilities" test, thus there are no gods, in the same way that Russell's Teapot does not exist as an invisible teapot orbiting the earth or in the same way that the Spaghetti Monster does not exist.

This is sufficient proof to discard any idea that there are gods.

Personally, I am disappointed with Schnozzola in that he seems to have attempted to make a compromise; a compromise that is both wrong and unnecessary. Holybuckets has merely remain in a position without giving evidence of any sort and in a state of complete intransigence.

The human response it to try and engage him on his own ground (false as it may be) and enter into agreement of sorts, when that agreement is entirely without justification.

That he has moved someone towards his position "Absolute proof is required" and has now leapt upon this by praising Schnozzola is transparent hypocrisy and deception. It is also erroneous - that level of proof is not required.

As I have explained, there is no need whatsoever to provide absolute, incontrovertible proof that there are no gods (a) it is not required of someone who simply maintains that the additional information is wrong ("there are gods") (b) The balance of probabilities is quite sufficient to dismiss these sky-fairies of any flavour.

« Last Edit: May 27, 2013, 02:31:28 PM by Graybeard »

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Personally, I am disappointed with Schnozzola in that he seems to have attempted to make a compromise; a compromise that is both wrong and unnecessary. Holybuckets has merely remain in a position without giving evidence of any sort and in a state of complete intransigence.

I thought the word "scientific" might be a stumbling block. Sometimes when we engage theists, I feel like we may be missing an opportunity to nudge the non compromisers with an olive branch - you know - step by step, into the camp of logic, or at least the camp of questioning, but I may have entered into a series of back and forths that I was not following. Point taken, GB. I remember even Velkyn one time admitted that god could be hiding under a rock at Alpha Centauri.

Once again we are at the crossroads and you atheists are squirming like worms.I would like to debate using historical evidence, scholarly evidence and primary evidence.You bring up Osiris, Bat Boy, the Time Cube, marshmallows and bowling balls.... again, is this the best you got?

Look, HB, you have been on this site for a while but you have not really produced anything that argues for your god but a few bits of creationist sites. Come along now, give us your best shot of contemporary eye witness evidence and we will discuss it.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

You know what's ironic is I've been to many Christian websites and have found no discussion... I mean zero whatsoever of anything intellectually being discussed like it does here. I find this very frightening regardless of an existence of a god.

It's always god did this and that. The sun rises, praise god! I was sick, took some medicine and now am cured only after a few days - praise god! I was diagnosed with cancer and was told I only had a few months to live - now I'm cured of cancer - praise god!

Notice how all the effort of human scientific knowledge was totally discredited and superseded by supernatural powers!? Its all very weird and based on emotion than logic - this I understand completely.

I wish Christians would at least own up that ignorance is encouraged to believe where here all we ask is for people to be held to intellectual responsibility. It was easy before the days of Google to blatantly lie to people for your cause. You still can today but the difference is that more people are starting to read and search the Internet for information than promote intellectual laziness and proclaim to read nothing but the bible.

Having said that I choose a website and nonbeliefs such as what is encouraged here because it forces us to use intellect and the rules of science rather than the powers of the supernatural to explain our universe.

If people still need to cling to an old emotionally charged story of why we are here so be it. But the problem is there is no evidence for such profound claims. None whatsoever.

Just to emphasize... I don't have kids but if I did I would raise them to think and be intellectually responsible. If that still led them to the Christian god then so be it. But I highly doubt this as that is the point. Christians have and maintain no intellectual responsibility for anything. God told me to <insert George W Bush here>

Happy memorial day..! Excuse the errors as this was from a mobile device.

« Last Edit: May 27, 2013, 04:14:48 PM by DVZ3 »

Logged

Hguols: "Its easier for me to believe that a God created everything...."

Once again we are at the crossroads and you atheists are squirming like worms.I would like to debate using historical evidence, scholarly evidence and primary evidence.You bring up Osiris, Bat Boy, the Time Cube, marshmallows and bowling balls.... again, is this the best you got?

You forgot "I.L. Cohen". The mysterious academic with no research papers published. The "member" of the NY academy of sciences and "Officer" of the Archaeological Institute of America, who, remarkably, has gone un-recorded on their websites.

HB, if you think the majority of Christians are driven by 'scholars' and 'informed' knowledge then you are very mistaken. The majority of Christians I know have no education passed high school. I have a cousin who is going to a Christian college and is into music. He wants a life in god and music and is now looking for work. I don't have heart to tell him that going to a Christian college is like putting you worked for Taco Bell when applying for NASA. He's a good kid and I feel very sorry for him that he won't find the same opportunities without succumbing to some lie that only encourages what he thinks to be true.

HB, do you work? What is your profession?

Logged

Hguols: "Its easier for me to believe that a God created everything...."

Once again we are at the crossroads and you atheists are squirming like worms.I would like to debate using historical evidence, scholarly evidence and primary evidence.You bring up Osiris, Bat Boy, the Time Cube, marshmallows and bowling balls.... again, is this the best you got?

You forgot "I.L. Cohen". The mysterious academic with no research papers published. The "member" of the NY academy of sciences and "Officer" of the Archaeological Institute of America, who, remarkably, has gone un-recorded on their websites.

Very good point, so in our debate, shall we exclude scholarly evidence from authors with no published papers in scholarly journals? Is that fair enough?

Not at all,I am claiming that we cannot prove not disprove God by scientific methods. Because we do not have the measures of the capability to do that, we must look at other areas for proof.

Then you have no logical reason to believe that such a being exist. I can't disprove that leprechauns exist, does that mean I should believe in them? The time for belief is when there is evidence for such belief, else you are open to any and all imaginary claims. It always irritates me when theists use this argument (I.E. you can't prove god doesn't exist) because it doesn't help their position whatsoever, in fact it is a statement of profound ignorance or blind faith.

Logged

We theists have no evidence for our beliefs. So no amount of rational evidence will dissuade us from those beliefs. - JCisall

It would be pretty piss poor brainwashing, if the victims knew they were brainwashed, wouldn't it? - Screwtape. 04/12/12

I would like to begin to give you my evidence on this debate. I hope the responses you can give are well thought out, honest, and backed by credible sources, as I hope you can see by my effort.I want to start off by setting the landscape of what it was like in 1st century Jerusalem. The populous was almost all Jewish, and Jews who followed strict Jewish discipline and Jewish culture.Religious wise, the teaching was done primarily through the Rabbi, who would recite the Old Testament to those who listened, largely because there were no books in the general population and virtually the entire population did not know how to read or write.I am keeping this short because I do not like long posts that take me forever to read. If you desire further evaluation, feel free to instigate an internet search, or read some of the references provided. Facts about 1st Century Jerusalem1. Jerusalem was primarily Jewish in the 1st half of the 1st century [1]2. The population of Jerusalem was 97% illiterate."Thus, it is no exaggeration to say that the total literacy rate in the Land of Israel at that time (of Jews only, of course), was probably less than 3%." [2]3. Education was transmitted orally [3]"Greco-Roman higher education, especially rhetoric and philosophical teaching, took place orally, without the assistance of texts of the necessity to fit arguments in writing. Loveday Alexander has shown that the rabbis did not stand alone in their "skepticism for the written word", but can be seen as representatives of a general opposition to the usage of the written word in certain contexts within Graeco-Roman society at large." Alexander refers to Galen (2nd. c. C.E.), who wrote: "There may well be truth in saying current among most craftsmen, that reading out of a book is not the same thing as, or even comparable to, learning from the living voice" (Hezser, 2001. p. 99).Sources1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Palestine2. Meir Bar-Ilan, Meir. (1997) Illiteracy in the Land of Israel in the first centuries c.e. Retrieved from: http://faculty.biu.ac.il/~barilm/illitera.html3. Hezser, C. (2001). Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine (No. 81). Paul Mohr Verlag.

I think it's reasonable to say that most Hebrews were illiterate. However, the fact that their stories were carried down through an oral tradition is a point against their accuracy; human memory is malleable and every time a memory is accessed, it is altered by the brain. The further you get from the original accounts (passed down through oral tradition), the less accurate they become. It isn't quite as bad as a telephone game, because the people doing it were trained in mnemonic retention, but nonetheless, it still happened. Perhaps it would be better to say these oral traditions evolved as they were passed on, but either way, they changed over time. One of the problems is that most of these illiterate Hebrews (including the nascent Christians) were almost certainly not trained in oral mnemonics, yet they assuredly passed on the stories as well, leading to a situation where the stories would have changed much more rapidly.

As [wiki]Jan Vansina[/wiki] says in the preface of Oral Tradition: A Study in Historical Methodology, "scholars should not merely observe their interlocutors in other cultures but also carefully listen to what they have to say, particularly about their memories of the past" and "the historical rules of evidence, which are universally valid in so far as they are an application of logic, can and must be applied to oral traditions if one wants to test the historical validity of their rendering of the past".[1]

Note that although this is from a book, Vansina has in fact published articles in scholarly journals. Furthermore, per the Wikipedia article on him, he is one of the most prominent Africanist scholars and has published widely.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

I think it's reasonable to say that most Hebrews were illiterate. However, the fact that their stories were carried down through an oral tradition is a point against their accuracy; human memory is malleable and every time a memory is accessed, it is altered by the brain. The further you get from the original accounts (passed down through oral tradition), the less accurate they become. It isn't quite as bad as a telephone game, because the people doing it were trained in mnemonic retention, but nonetheless, it still happened. Perhaps it would be better to say these oral traditions evolved as they were passed on, but either way, they changed over time. One of the problems is that most of these illiterate Hebrews (including the nascent Christians) were almost certainly not trained in oral mnemonics, yet they assuredly passed on the stories as well, leading to a situation where the stories would have changed much more rapidly.

As [wiki]Jan Vansina[/wiki] says in the preface of Oral Tradition: A Study in Historical Methodology, "scholars should not merely observe their interlocutors in other cultures but also carefully listen to what they have to say, particularly about their memories of the past" and "the historical rules of evidence, which are universally valid in so far as they are an application of logic, can and must be applied to oral traditions if one wants to test the historical validity of their rendering of the past".[1]

Note that although this is from a book, Vansina has in fact published articles in scholarly journals. Furthermore, per the Wikipedia article on him, he is one of the most prominent Africanist scholars and has published widely.

Jan Vansina studied people in Central Africa. Do you have any scholarly rebuttal to the specific people we are talking about in the1st century Jerusalem?

Jan Vansina studied people in Central Africa. Do you have any scholarly rebuttal to the specific people we are talking about in the1st century Jerusalem?

Irrelevant. Jan Vansina has studied oral traditions in Africa, which as you have stated, were also prevalent in 1st century Jerusalem. You cannot arbitrarily exclude him because his field of study is contemporary oral traditions rather than historical ones.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Jan Vansina studied people in Central Africa. Do you have any scholarly rebuttal to the specific people we are talking about in the1st century Jerusalem?

Irrelevant. Jan Vansina has studied oral traditions in Africa, which as you have stated, were also prevalent in 1st century Jerusalem. You cannot arbitrarily exclude him because his field of study is contemporary oral traditions rather than historical ones.

Jan Vansina studied people in Central Africa. Do you have any scholarly rebuttal to the specific people we are talking about in the1st century Jerusalem?

Are you seriously trying to say that the people of contemporary Central Africa are capable of making mistakes in passing on their oral traditions, but the Jews of first century Jerusalem were not?

Unless you can cite evidence that shows that the early Jews were infallible when it came to memory, then we can easily deduce that they were human, and thus capable of making mistakes. In other words, it's a far, FAR greater leap to think that every single early Jew that ever spoke to someone else about their religion was absolutely perfect, than it is to think that (like the rest of humanity since the beginning of oral traditions) they made mistakes.

Humans make mistakes in oral traditions... Jaimehlers gave you evidence to back this up. Do you have any evidence that proves that first century Jews were infallible in passing on oral traditions?

Also, is this entire line even relevant to the evidence you're going to provide?

Logged

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

One of the problems is that most of these illiterate Hebrews (including the nascent Christians) were almost certainly not trained in oral mnemonics, yet they assuredly passed on the stories as well, leading to a situation where the stories would have changed much more rapidly.

I'm not versed in linguistic or anthropological analysis, but would it be reasonable to assume that rival factions would probably pass down increasingly divergent versions of the original stories?

Unless you can actually show that his expertise on contemporary oral traditions would not apply to historical oral traditions, you cannot arbitrarily exclude him.

In other words, cease this nitpicking and get to your actual evidence.

I beg to differ, but there is a big difference in Central Africa in the 1970's and first century Jerusalem. There is a big difference between hearing a story and repeating it, and the discipline student went through learning Judaism.

The Four Jobs of a Disciple

1. Once one entered into a discipleship…the first task was to memorize their teacher's words. The oral transmission process was the only method practiced among the ages. The great rabbis and Torah scholars did not write scrolls or compose books for their students to read and study. Instead, they taught orally and their disciples studied by memorizing their words. Through constant repetition, disciples memorized their teacher's words verbatim and were able to repeat them to subsequent generations.

2. To learn their teacher's traditions and interpretations. It was a disciple's job to learn the tradition of how his teacher kept the commands of God and interpreted the Scriptures. Every detail about the teacher was important to the disciple. The disciple needed to learn how the teacher washed his hands, how he kept the Sabbath, how he fasted, how he prayed, how he gave charity, how he affixed a mezuzah, how he said the blessings over food, etc. Furthermore, the way the teacher interpreted passages of scriptures, the meanings he drew out, the midrashim he told, the parables and stories he used to elucidate with, the way he explained a verse or understood a concept, each of these was of utmost importance to the disciple. Details of this sort were not just trivia. To a disciple, these were like gems and pearls meant to be gathered and treasured.

3. To imitate their teacher's actions. It was the job of a disciple to be like his teacher. A disciple's highest calling was to be a reflection of his teacher. His goal was to one day be just like his Master. A disciple studied to learn to act and to speak and to respond the same why his Master would act and speak and respond. A disciple studied to do the things his Master did.

4. To raise up disciples. It was the job of a disciple, when finally trained, to raise up his own disciples. He was to create a new generation of students and to transmit to them the memorized words of his Master, the traditions and the interpretations of his Master, the actions and behaviors of his Master. The goal was to pass the teaching and the torch of discipleship from generation to generation. So each disciple became the teacher, the rabbi, the master, and the father to a new generation of disciples.http://www.rabbiyeshua.com/rabbiyeshua/2001/discipleshiptoyeshua.html

You see, Jaime, this is a little bit more than just hearing something and repeating it. This is what the people did in the day- they listened and learned.

You see, Jaime, this is a little bit more than just hearing something and repeating it. This is what the people did in the day- they listened and learned.

That, however, has nothing to do with evidence for gods in any meaningful sense. A carefully preserved and handed-down story about a make-believe being is still just a story about a make-believe being.

So do you have any evidence that is up to our standards, or are you just going to fill the thread with anecdotes and accounts of ancient cultural practices?

You see, Jaime, this is a little bit more than just hearing something and repeating it. This is what the people did in the day- they listened and learned.

That, however, has nothing to do with evidence for gods in any meaningful sense. A carefully preserved and handed-down story about a make-believe being is still just a story about a make-believe being.

So do you have any evidence that is up to our standards, or are you just going to fill the thread with anecdotes and accounts of ancient cultural practices?

First things first. I appreciate your patience and any rebuttal you may have.